Rick Santorum had been the last best hope of Christian conservatives who opposed Mitt Romney, derided by many as a “Massachusetts moderate.” Now, facing the abrupt end of Mr. Santorum’s presidential bid, some evangelical leaders have begun to rally behind Mr. Romney, saying their shared hostility toward President Obama will be a powerful force for uniting the party in November.

In one sign of coalescing support from Christian conservatives, the National Organization for Marriage, a leading opponent of same-sex marriage, endorsed Mr. Romney on Wednesday morning. The group called Mr. Romney a “true champion” and said that Mr. Obama “has done virtually everything in his power to undermine the institution of marriage.”

But the whole-hearted support of evangelicals, who accounted for nearly one-fourth of all ballots cast in recent presidential elections, will not come without conditions, some leaders warned. During the bitterly fought Republican primary campaign, many conservatives questioned the depth of Mr. Romney’s opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and government spending. They say that to win the presidency, Mr. Romney may need a fired-up base to produce a large evangelical turnout in swing states like Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

If Mr. Romney is to generate more excitement and sacrifice from Christian conservatives, he must “demonstrate a genuine and solid commitment to the core values issues,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Santorum had vaulted into conservative favor because “he passionately articulated the connection between America’s financial greatness and its moral and cultural wholeness” and recognized that “the economy and the family are indivisible.”

Evangelicals were excited last August when Rick Perry, the Texas governor, entered the race, but he soon fizzled after poor debate performances. More than 100 Christian leaders met last January on a Texas ranch to seek a consensus candidate. Most cast their lot with Mr. Santorum, but some stayed loyal to Newt Gingrich, resulting in a divided evangelical vote in subsequent primaries.

Yeah, after four years of being a non-disruptive poster on the forum, never considered a troublemaker, even someone who was liked well enough to be elected Atlasian President, Napoleon should be allowed to stay.

This is going to be a VERY tough sell. Evangelicals really, really don't like Mormons. Against a white Protestant Democrat, Romney could easily lose the South. Against Obama, he shouldn't have much trouble in Dixie.

This is going to be a VERY tough sell. Evangelicals really, really don't like Mormons. Against a white Protestant Democrat, Romney could easily lose the South. Against Obama, he shouldn't have much trouble in Dixie.

Evangelicals like Muslims even less.

Besides, according to Pew the only one of the close election swing states that has evangelicals at higher rate than the national average is Virginia. The evangelicals are mainly concentrated in safe Republican states.

This is going to be a VERY tough sell. Evangelicals really, really don't like Mormons. Against a white Protestant Democrat, Romney could easily lose the South. Against Obama, he shouldn't have much trouble in Dixie.

Evangelicals like Muslims even less.

Besides, according to Pew the only one of the close election swing states that has evangelicals at higher rate than the national average is Virginia. The evangelicals are mainly concentrated in safe Republican states.

It's a rather circular argument you make. Evangelicals are concentrated in Republican states because they are a strong Republican constituency. Bill Clinton would destroy Romney in the South, but we'll never get to see. And the Obama/birther/Muslim meme is a dark stain on current politics. It says a lot about evangelicals that this is apparantly an issue.

Bill Clinton would destroy Romney in the South, but we'll never get to see.

And if we did, we'd likely find you were wrong. Absent Perot, the only Southern states Clinton would have won in his two tries were Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, and all three states have trended strongly Republican since then. I think Billy would lose those three if he were running against Romney today, tho he would get back into the White House.

While Bill would have beaten Bob even if Ross had stayed home, in 1992 without Ross, it would have been a close election that favored George. Bill's EV landslides were thanks to Ross.

That was less untrue in 1996 than in 1992, but it is wishful thinking on the part of Clinton-backers. Even if it were true that after having been exposed to the Perot campaign, his voters would have split equally if he had been gone, it ignores the impact of Perot spending almost all his time and money in bashing Bush in 1992.

This is going to be a VERY tough sell. Evangelicals really, really don't like Mormons. Against a white Protestant Democrat, Romney could easily lose the South. Against Obama, he shouldn't have much trouble in Dixie.

Evangelicals like Muslims even less.

Besides, according to Pew the only one of the close election swing states that has evangelicals at higher rate than the national average is Virginia. The evangelicals are mainly concentrated in safe Republican states.

It's a rather circular argument you make. Evangelicals are concentrated in Republican states because they are a strong Republican constituency. Bill Clinton would destroy Romney in the South, but we'll never get to see. And the Obama/birther/Muslim meme is a dark stain on current politics. It says a lot about evangelicals that this is apparantly an issue.

It also says a lot about evangelicals that they put their faith in a political party that makes a mockery of the tenets of the Gospel.